EN BANC

[G.R. No. 159085. February 3, 2004]

SANLAKAS, represene! by R"#. $.%. &au'sa, an! #AR()*+ NG
,ANGGAGA-A, represene! by R"#. R"NA(+
,AG(.&+ petitioners, vs. "/"0.()%" S"0R"(AR1
S"0R"(AR1 ANG"L+ R"1"S, G"N"RAL NAR0)S+ A&A1A, *)R.
G"N. 2"R,+G"N"S "&*AN",respondents.
[G.R. No. 159103. February 3, 2004]
S+0)AL $.S()0" S+0)"(1 3S$S4 +FF)0"RS5,",&"RS na6e7y,
SA,S+N S. AL0AN(ARA, "* %)N0"N( S. AL&AN+, R"N" &.
G+R+S#", "*-)N R. SAN*+%AL an! R+*+LF+ *.
,A#)L", petitioners, vs. 2+N. "/"0.()%" S"0R"(AR1
AL&"R(+ G. R+,.L+, 2+N. S"0R"(AR1 +F $.S()0" S),"+N
*A(.,AN+NG, 2+N. S"0R"(AR1 +F NA()+NAL *"F"NS"
ANG"L+ R"1"S, an! 2+N. S"0R"(AR1 $+S" L)NA,
$R., respondents.
[G.R. No. 159185. February 3, 2004]
R"#. R+L"/ (. S.#L)0+, R"#. 0ARL+S ,. #A*)LLA, R"#. 0"LS+ L.
L+&R"GA(, R"#. 2.SS)N .. A,)N, R"#. A&RA2A, KA2L)L &.
,)(RA, R"#. ",,1L+. $. (AL)N+8SAN(+S, an! R"#.
G"+RG)L. R. 1.,.L82"R,)*A, petitioners, vs. #R"S)*"N(
GL+R)A ,A0A#AGAL8ARR+1+9 an! "/"0.()%" S"0R"(AR1
AL&"R(+ G. R+,.L+, respondents.
[G.R. No. 15919:. February 3, 2004]
A;.)L)N+ ;. #),"N("L, $R. as a ,e6ber o< =e
Senae, petitioner, vs. S"0R"(AR1 AL&"R(+ R+,.L+, AS
"/"0.()%" S"0R"(AR19 S"0R"(AR1 ANG"L+ R"1"S, AS
S"0R"(AR1 +F NA()+NAL *"F"NS"9 G"N"RAL NAR0)S+
A&A1A, AS 02)"F +F S(AFF +F (2" AR,"* F+R0"S9
S"0R"(AR1 $+S" L)NA, e a7., respondents.
* " 0 ) S ) + N
()NGA, J.>
They came in the middle of the night. Armed with high-powered ammunitions and
explosives, some three hundred unior officers and enlisted men of the Armed !orces of
the "hilippines #A!"$ stormed into the %a&wood "remiere apartments in 'a&ati City in
the wee hours of (uly )*, )++,. Bewailing the corruption in the A!", the soldiers
demanded, among other things, the resignation of the "resident, the -ecretary of
.efense and the Chief of the "hilippine National "olice #"N"$.
[1]
/n the wa&e of the %a&wood occupation, the "resident issued later in the day
"roclamation No. 0)* and 1eneral %rder No. 0, 2oth declaring 3a state of re2ellion4 and
calling out the Armed !orces to suppress the re2ellion. "roclamation No. 0)* reads in
full5
PROCLAMATION NO. 427
DECLARING A STATE OF REBELLION
WHEREAS, certain ee!ent" #$ t%e Ar!e& F#rce" #$ t%e P%ii''ine", ar!e& (it%
%i)%*'#(ere& $irear!" an& e+'#"i,e", actin) -'#n t%e in"ti)ati#n an& c#!!an& an&
&irecti#n #$ .n#(n an& -n.n#(n ea&er", %a,e "ei/e& a 0-i&in) in Ma.ati Cit1, '-t
0#!0" in t%e area, '-0ic1 &ecare& (it%&ra(a #$ "-''#rt $#r, an& t##. ar!" a)ain"t
t%e &-1 c#n"tit-te& G#,ern!ent, an& c#ntin-e t# ri"e '-0ic1 an& "%#( #'en
%#"tiit1, $#r t%e '-r'#"e #$ re!#,in) ae)iance t# t%e G#,ern!ent certain 0#&ie" #$
t%e Ar!e& F#rce" #$ t%e P%ii''ine" an& t%e P%ii''ine Nati#na P#ice, an& &e'ri,in)
t%e Pre"i&ent #$ t%e Re'-0ic #$ t%e P%ii''ine", (%#1 #r 'artia1, #$ %er '#(er" an&
'rer#)ati,e" (%ic% c#n"tit-te t%e cri!e #$ re0ei#n '-ni"%a0e -n&er Artice 234 #$
t%e Re,i"e& Pena C#&e, a" a!en&e&4
WHEREAS, t%e"e !i")-i&e& ee!ent" #$ t%e Ar!e& F#rce" #$ t%e P%ii''ine" are
0ein) "-''#rte&, a0ette& an& ai&e& 01 .n#(n an& -n.n#(n ea&er", c#n"'irat#r" an&
'#tter" in t%e )#,ern!ent "er,ice an& #-t"i&e t%e )#,ern!ent4
WHEREAS, -n&er Secti#n 25, Artice 6II #$ t%e 're"ent C#n"tit-ti#n, (%ene,er it
0ec#!e" nece""ar1, t%e Pre"i&ent, a" t%e C#!!an&er*in*C%ie$ #$ t%e Ar!e& F#rce" #$
t%e P%ii''ine", !a1 ca #-t "-c% Ar!e& F#rce" t# "-''re"" t%e re0ei#n4
NOW, THEREFORE, I, GLORIA MACAPAGAL*ARRO7O, 01 ,irt-e #$ t%e '#(er"
,e"te& in !e 01 a(, %ere01 c#n$ir! t%e e+i"tence #$ an act-a an& #n*)#in) re0ei#n,
c#!'ein) !e t# &ecare a "tate #$ re0ei#n.
In ,ie( #$ t%e $#re)#in), I a! i""-in) Genera Or&er N#. 4 in acc#r&ance (it% Secti#n
25, Artice 6II #$ t%e C#n"tit-ti#n, cain) #-t t%e Ar!e& F#rce" #$ t%e P%ii''ine"
an& t%e P%ii''ine Nati#na P#ice t# i!!e&iate1 carr1 #-t t%e nece""ar1 acti#n" an&
!ea"-re" t# "-''re"" an& 8-e t%e re0ei#n (it% &-e re)ar& t# c#n"tit-ti#na ri)%t".
1eneral %rder No. 0 is similarly worded5
GENERAL ORDER NO. 4
DIRECTING THE ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES AND THE
PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE TO S9PPRESS REBELLION
WHEREAS, certain ee!ent" #$ t%e Ar!e& F#rce" #$ t%e P%ii''ine", ar!e& (it%
%i)%*'#(ere& $irear!" an& e+'#"i,e", actin) -'#n t%e in"ti)ati#n an& c#!!an& an&
&irecti#n #$ .n#(n an& -n.n#(n ea&er", %a,e "ei/e& a 0-i&in) in Ma.ati Cit1, '-t
0#!0" in t%e area, '-0ic1 &ecare& (it%&ra(a #$ "-''#rt $#r, an& t##. ar!" a)ain"t
t%e &-1 c#n"tit-te& G#,ern!ent, an& c#ntin-e t# ri"e '-0ic1 an& "%#( #'en
%#"tiit1, $#r t%e '-r'#"e #$ re!#,in) ae)iance t# t%e G#,ern!ent certain 0#&ie" #$
t%e Ar!e& F#rce" #$ t%e P%ii''ine" an& t%e P%ii''ine Nati#na P#ice, an& &e'ri,in)
t%e Pre"i&ent #$ t%e Re'-0ic #$ t%e P%ii''ine", (%#1 #r 'artia1, #$ %er '#(er" an&
'rer#)ati,e" (%ic% c#n"tit-te t%e cri!e #$ re0ei#n '-ni"%a0e -n&er Artice 234 et
seq. #$ t%e Re,i"e& Pena C#&e, a" a!en&e&4
WHEREAS, t%e"e !i")-i&e& ee!ent" #$ t%e Ar!e& F#rce" #$ t%e P%ii''ine" are
0ein) "-''#rte&, a0ette& an& ai&e& 01 .n#(n an& -n.n#(n ea&er", c#n"'irat#r" an&
'#tter" in t%e )#,ern!ent "er,ice an& #-t"i&e t%e )#,ern!ent4
WHEREAS, -n&er Secti#n 25, Artice 6II #$ t%e 're"ent C#n"tit-ti#n, (%ene,er it
0ec#!e" nece""ar1, t%e Pre"i&ent, a" t%e C#!!an&er*in*C%ie$ #$ a Ar!e& F#rce" #$
t%e P%ii''ine", !a1 ca #-t "-c% Ar!e& F#rce" t# "-''re"" t%e re0ei#n4
NOW, THEREFORE, I, GLORIA MACAPAGAL*ARRO7O, 01 ,irt-e #$ t%e '#(er"
,e"te& in !e 01 t%e C#n"tit-ti#n a" Pre"i&ent #$ t%e Re'-0ic #$ t%e P%ii''ine" an&
C#!!an&er*in*C%ie$ #$ a t%e ar!e& $#rce" #$ t%e P%ii''ine" an& '-r"-ant t#
Pr#ca!ati#n N#. 427 &ate& :-1 27, 2;;3, &# %ere01 ca -'#n t%e Ar!e& F#rce" #$
t%e P%ii''ine" an& t%e P%ii''ine Nati#na P#ice t# "-''re"" an& 8-e t%e re0ei#n.
I %ere01 &irect t%e C%ie$ #$ t%e Ar!e& F#rce" #$ t%e P%ii''ine" an& t%e C%ie$ #$ t%e
P%ii''ine Nati#na P#ice an& t%e #$$icer" an& !en #$ t%e Ar!e& F#rce" #$ t%e
P%ii''ine" an& t%e P%ii''ine Nati#na P#ice t# i!!e&iate1 carr1 #-t t%e nece""ar1
an& a''r#'riate acti#n" an& !ea"-re" t# "-''re"" an& 8-e t%e re0ei#n (it% &-e
re)ar& t# c#n"tit-ti#na ri)%t".
By the evening of (uly )*, )++,, the %a&wood occupation had ended. After hours-
long negotiations, the soldiers agreed to return to 2arrac&s. The "resident, however,
did not immediately lift the declaration of a state of re2ellion and did so only on August
6, )++,, through "roclamation No. 0,75
DECLARING THAT THE STATE OF REBELLION HAS CEASED TO E<IST
WHEREAS, 01 ,irt-e #$ Pr#ca!ati#n N#. 427 &ate& :-1 27, 2;;3, a "tate #$
re0ei#n (a" &ecare&4
WHEREAS, 01 ,irt-e #$ Genera Or&er N#. 4 &ate& :-1 27, 2;;3, (%ic% (a" i""-e&
#n t%e 0a"i" #$ Pr#ca!ati#n N#. 427 &ate& :-1 27, 2;;3, an& '-r"-ant t# Artice 6II,
Secti#n 25 #$ t%e C#n"tit-ti#n, t%e Ar!e& F#rce" #$ t%e P%ii''ine" an& t%e P%ii''ine
Nati#na P#ice (ere &irecte& t# "-''re"" an& 8-e t%e re0ei#n4
WHEREAS, t%e Ar!e& F#rce" #$ t%e P%ii''ine" an& t%e P%ii''ine Nati#na P#ice
%a,e e$$ecti,e1 "-''re""e& an& 8-ee& t%e re0ei#n.
NOW, THEREFORE, I, GLORIA MACAPAGAL*ARRO7O, Pre"i&ent #$ t%e
P%ii''ine", 01 ,irt-e #$ t%e '#(er" ,e"te& in !e 01 a(, %ere01 &ecare t%at t%e "tate
#$ re0ei#n %a" cea"e& t# e+i"t.
/n the interim, several petitions were filed 2efore this Court challenging the validity
of "roclamation No. 0)* and 1eneral %rder No. 0.
/n 1.8. No. 679+:7 #Sanlakas and PM v. Executive Secretary, et al.$,
[2]
party-list
organi;ations -anla&as and "artido ng 'anggagawa #"'$, contend that -ection 6:,
Article <// of the Constitution does not re=uire the declaration of a state of re2ellion to
call out the armed forces.
[3]
They further su2mit that, 2ecause of the cessation of the
%a&wood occupation, there exists no sufficient factual 2asis for the proclamation 2y the
"resident of a state of re2ellion for an indefinite period.
[4]
"etitioners in 1.8. No. 6796+, #SJS Officers/Members v. Hon. Executive Secretary,
et al.$ are officers>mem2ers of the -ocial (ustice -ociety #-(-$, 3!ilipino citi;ens,
taxpayers, law professors and 2ar reviewers.4
[5]
?i&e -anla&as and "', they claim that
-ection 6:, Article <// of the Constitution does not authori;e the declaration of a state of
re2ellion.
[6]
They contend that the declaration is a 3constitutional anomaly4 that
3confuses, confounds and misleads4 2ecause 3@oAver;ealous pu2lic officers, acting
pursuant to such proclamation or general order, are lia2le to violate the constitutional
right of private citi;ens.4
[7]
"etitioners also su2mit that the proclamation is a
circumvention of the report re=uirement under the same -ection 6:, Article <//,
commanding the "resident to su2mit a report to Congress within 0: hours from the
proclamation of martial law.
[8]
!inally, they contend that the presidential issuances
cannot 2e construed as an exercise of emergency powers as Congress has not
delegated any such power to the "resident.
[9]
/n 1.8. No. 6796:7 #Re. Sulico et al. v. President Macaa!al"#rroyo and
Executive Secretary Romulo$, petitioners 2rought suit as citi;ens and as 'em2ers of
the Bouse of 8epresentatives whose rights, powers and functions were allegedly
affected 2y the declaration of a state of re2ellion.
[10]
"etitioners do not challenge the
power of the "resident to call out the Armed !orces.
[11]
They argue, however, that the
declaration of a state of re2ellion is a 3superfluity,4 and is actually an exercise of
emergency powers.
[12]
-uch exercise, it is contended, amounts to a usurpation of the
power of Congress granted 2y -ection ), #)$, Article </ of the Constitution.
[13]
/n 1.8. No. 67969C #Pimentel v. Romulo, et al.$, petitioner -enator assails the
su2ect presidential issuances as 3an unwarranted, illegal and a2usive exercise of a
martial law power that has no 2asis under the Constitution.4
[14]
/n the main, petitioner
fears that the declaration of a state of re2ellion 3opens the door to the unconstitutional
implementation of warrantless arrests4 for the crime of re2ellion.
[15]
8e=uired to comment, the -olicitor 1eneral argues that the petitions have 2een
rendered moot 2y the lifting of the declaration.
@6CA
/n addition, the -olicitor 1eneral
=uestions the standing of the petitioners to 2ring suit.
@6*A
The Court agrees with the -olicitor 1eneral that the issuance of "roclamation No.
0,7, declaring that the state of re2ellion has ceased to exist, has rendered the case
moot. As a rule, courts do not adudicate moot cases, udicial power 2eing limited to the
determination of 3a?ua7 controversies.4
[18]
Nevertheless, courts will decide a =uestion,
otherwise moot, if it is 3capa2le of repetition yet evading review.4
[19]
The case at 2ar is
one such case.
%nce 2efore, the "resident on 'ay 6, )++6 declared a state of re2ellion and called
upon the A!" and the "N" to suppress the re2ellion through "roclamation No. ,: and
1eneral %rder No. 6. %n that occasion, 3Dan angry and violent mo2 armed with
explosives, firearms, 2laded weapons, clu2s, stones and other deadly weaponsE
assaulted and attempted to 2rea& into 'alacaFang.4
[20]
"etitions were filed 2efore this
Court assailing the validity of the "residentEs declaration. !ive days after such
declaration, however, the "resident lifted the same. The mootness of the petitions
in $acson v. Pere% and accompanying cases
[21]
precluded this Court from addressing the
constitutionality of the declaration.
To prevent similar =uestions from reemerging, we sei;e this opportunity to finally lay
to rest the validity of the declaration of a state of re2ellion in the exercise of the
"residentEs calling out power, the mootness of the petitions notwithstanding.
%nly petitioners 8ep. -uplico et al. and -en. "imentel, as 'em2ers of Congress,
have standing to challenge the su2ect issuances. /n P&iliine 'onstitution
#ssociation v. Enri(ue%,
[22]
this Court recogni;ed that5
T# t%e e+tent t%e '#(er" #$ C#n)re"" are i!'aire&, "# i" t%e '#(er #$ eac% !e!0er
t%ere#$, "ince %i" #$$ice c#n$er" a ri)%t t# 'artici'ate in t%e e+erci"e #$ t%e '#(er" #$
t%at in"tit-ti#n.
An act #$ t%e E+ec-ti,e (%ic% in=-re" t%e in"tit-ti#n #$ C#n)re"" ca-"e" a &eri,ati,e
0-t n#net%ee"" "-0"tantia in=-r1, (%ic% can 0e 8-e"ti#ne& 01 a !e!0er #$
C#n)re"". In "-c% a ca"e, an1 !e!0er #$ C#n)re"" can %a,e a re"#rt t# t%e c#-rt".
"etitioner 'em2ers of Congress claim that the declaration of a state of re2ellion 2y the
"resident is tantamount to an exercise of CongressE emergency powers, thus impairing
the lawma&ersE legislative powers. "etitioners also maintain that the declaration is a
su2terfuge to avoid congressional scrutiny into the "residentEs exercise of martial law
powers.
"etitioners -anla&as and "', and -(- %fficers>'em2ers, have no legal standing
or locus standi to 2ring suit. 3?egal standing4 or locus standi has 2een defined as a
personal and su2stantial interest in the case such that the party has sustained or will
sustain direct inury as a result of the governmental act that is 2eing challengedG. The
gist of the =uestion of standing is whether a party alleges 3such personal sta&e in the
outcome of the controversy as to assure that concrete adverseness which sharpens the
presentation of issues upon which the court depends for illumination of difficult
constitutional =uestions.4
[23]
"etitioners -anla&as and "' assert that5
2. A" a 0a"ic 'rinci'e #$ t%e #r)ani/ati#n" an& a" an i!'#rtant 'an. in t%eir
'r#)ra!", 'etiti#ner" are c#!!itte& t# a""ert, &e$en&, 'r#tect, -'%#&, an& 'r#!#te
t%e ri)%t", intere"t", an& (e$are #$ t%e 'e#'e, e"'ecia1 t%e '##r an& !ar)inai/e&
ca""e" an& "ect#r" #$ P%ii''ine "#ciet1. Petiti#ner" are c#!!itte& t# &e$en& an&
a""ert %-!an ri)%t", inc-&in) '#itica an& ci,i ri)%t", #$ t%e citi/en".
3. Me!0er" #$ t%e 'etiti#ner #r)ani/ati#n" re"#rt t# !a"" acti#n" an& !#0ii/ati#n" in
t%e e+erci"e #$ t%eir C#n"tit-ti#na ri)%t" t# 'eacea01 a""e!0e an& t%eir $ree&#! #$
"'eec% an& #$ e+'re""i#n -n&erSection 4, Article III #$ t%e 1987 Constitution, a" a
,e%ice t# '-0ic1 ,entiate t%eir )rie,ance" an& e)iti!ate &e!an&" an& t# !#0ii/e
'-0ic #'ini#n t# "-''#rt t%e "a!e.
[24]
>E!'%a"i" in t%e #ri)ina.?
"etitioner party-list organi;ations claim no 2etter right than the ?a2an ng
.emo&rati&ong "ilipino, whose standing this Court reected in $acson v. Pere%5
@ 'etiti#ner %a" n#t &e!#n"trate& an1 in=-r1 t# it"e$ (%ic% (#-& =-"ti$1 t%e re"#rt
t# t%e C#-rt. Petiti#ner i" a =-ri&ica 'er"#n n#t "-0=ect t# arre"t. T%-", it cann#t
cai! t# 0e t%reatene& 01 a (arrante"" arre"t. N#r i" it ae)e& t%at it" ea&er",
!e!0er", an& "-''#rter" are 0ein) t%reatene& (it% (arrante"" arre"t an& &etenti#n
$#r t%e cri!e #$ re0ei#n. E,er1 acti#n !-"t 0e 0r#-)%t in t%e na!e #$ t%e 'art1
(%#"e e)a ri)%t" %a" 0een in,a&e& #r in$rin)e&, #r (%#"e e)a ri)%t i" -n&er
i!!inent t%reat #$ in,a"i#n #r in$rin)e!ent.
At 0e"t, t%e in"tant 'etiti#n !a1 0e c#n"i&ere& a" an acti#n $#r &ecarat#r1 reie$,
'etiti#ner cai!in) t%at it>A?" ri)%t t# $ree&#! #$ e+'re""i#n an& $ree&#! #$ a""e!01
i" a$$ecte& 01 t%e &ecarati#n #$ a B"tate #$ re0ei#nC an& t%at "ai& 'r#ca!ati#n i"
in,ai& $#r 0ein) c#ntrar1 t# t%e C#n"tit-ti#n.
H#(e,er, t# c#n"i&er t%e 'etiti#n a" #ne $#r &ecarat#r1 reie$ a$$#r&" itte c#!$#rt t#
'etiti#ner, t%i" C#-rt n#t %a,in) =-ri"&icti#n in t%e $ir"t in"tance #,er "-c% a
'etiti#n. Secti#n D >2?, Artice 6III #$ t%e C#n"tit-ti#n i!it" t%e #ri)ina =-ri"&icti#n
#$ t%e c#-rt t# ca"e" a$$ectin) a!0a""a&#r", #t%er '-0ic !ini"ter" an& c#n"-", an&
#,er 'etiti#n" $#r certiorari, 'r#%i0iti#n, mandamus, quo warranto, an& habeas
corpus.
[25]
Even assuming that petitioners are 3peopleEs organi;ations,4 this status would not
vest them with the re=uisite personality to =uestion the validity of the presidential
issuances, as this Court made clear in )ilosbayan v. Morato5
@)CA
T%e C#n"tit-ti#n 'r#,i&e" t%at Bt%e State "%a re"'ect t%e r#e #$ in&e'en&ent 'e#'eE"
#r)ani/ati#n" t# ena0e t%e 'e#'e t# '-r"-e an& 'r#tect, (it%in t%e &e!#cratic
$ra!e(#r., t%eir e)iti!ate an& c#ecti,e intere"t" an& a"'irati#n" t%r#-)% 'eace$-
an& a($- !ean",C t%at t%eir ri)%t t# Be$$ecti,e an& rea"#na0e 'artici'ati#n at a
e,e" #$ "#cia, '#itica, an& ec#n#!ic &eci"i#n*!a.in) "%a n#t 0e a0ri&)e&.C FArt.
<III, GG2D*2HI
T%e"e 'r#,i"i#n" %a,e n#t c%an)e& t%e tra&iti#na r-e t%at #n1 real parties in
interest #r those with standing, a" t%e ca"e !a1 0e, !a1 in,#.e t%e =-&icia
'#(er. T%e =-ri"&icti#n #$ t%i" C#-rt, e,en in ca"e" in,#,in) c#n"tit-ti#na
8-e"ti#n", i" i!ite& 01 t%e Bca"e an& c#ntr#,er"1C re8-ire!ent #$ Art. 6III, GD. T%i"
re8-ire!ent ie" at t%e ,er1 %eart #$ t%e =-&icia $-ncti#n. It i" (%at &i$$erentiate"
&eci"i#n!a.in) in t%e c#-rt" $r#! &eci"i#n!a.in) in t%e '#itica &e'art!ent" #$ t%e
)#,ern!ent an& 0ar" t%e 0rin)in) #$ "-it" 01 =-"t an1 'art1.
[27]
That petitioner -(- officers>mem2ers are taxpayers and citi;ens does not
necessarily endow them with standing. A taxpayer may 2ring suit where the act
complained of directly involves the illegal dis2ursement of pu2lic funds derived from
taxation.
@):A
No such illegal dis2ursement is alleged.
%n the other hand, a citi;en will 2e allowed to raise a constitutional =uestion only
when he can show that he has personally suffered some actual or threatened inury as a
result of the allegedly illegal conduct of the governmentH the inury is fairly tracea2le to
the challenged actionH and the inury is li&ely to 2e redressed 2y a favora2le action.
[29]
Again, no such inury is alleged in this case.
Even granting these petitioners have standing on the ground that the issues they
raise are of transcendental importance, the petitions must fail.
/t is true that for the purpose of exercising the calling out power the Constitution
does not re=uire the "resident to ma&e a declaration of a state of re2ellion. -ection 6:,
Article <// provides5
Sec. 25. T%e Pre"i&ent "%a 0e t%e C#!!an&er*in*C%ie$ #$ a ar!e& $#rce" #$ t%e
P%ii''ine" an& whenever it becomes necessary, he may call out such armed forces
to prevent or suppress lawless violence, invasion or rebellion. In ca"e #$ in,a"i#n
#r re0ei#n, (%en t%e '-0ic "a$et1 re8-ire" it, %e !a1, $#r a 'eri#& n#t e+cee&in)
"i+t1 &a1", "-"'en& t%e 'ri,ie)e #$ t%e (rit #$ %a0ea" c#r'-" #r 'ace t%e P%ii''ine"
#r an1 'art t%ere#$ -n&er !artia a(. Wit%in $#rt1*ei)%t %#-r" $r#! t%e 'r#ca!ati#n
#$ !artia a( #r t%e "-"'en"i#n #$ t%e (rit #$ habeas corpus, t%e Pre"i&ent "%a
"-0!it a re'#rt in 'er"#n #r in (ritin) t# t%e C#n)re"". T%e C#n)re"", ,#tin) =#int1,
01 a ,#te #$ at ea"t a !a=#rit1 #$ a it" Me!0er" in re)-ar #r "'ecia "e""i#n, !a1
re,#.e "-c% 'r#ca!ati#n #r "-"'en"i#n, (%ic% re,#cati#n "%a n#t 0e "et a"i&e 01
t%e Pre"i&ent. 9'#n t%e initiati,e #$ t%e Pre"i&ent, t%e C#n)re"" !a1, in t%e "a!e
!anner, e+ten& "-c% 'r#ca!ati#n #r "-"'en"i#n $#r a 'eri#& t# 0e &eter!ine& 01 t%e
C#n)re"", i$ t%e in,a"i#n #r re0ei#n "%a 'er"i"t an& '-0ic "a$et1 re8-ire" it.
T%e C#n)re"", i$ n#t in "e""i#n, "%a, (it%in t(ent1*$#-r %#-r" $##(in) "-c%
'r#ca!ati#n #r "-"'en"i#n, c#n,ene in acc#r&ance (it% it" r-e" (it%#-t nee& #$ a
ca.
T%e S-'re!e C#-rt !a1 re,ie(, in an a''r#'riate 'r#cee&in) $ie& 01 an1 citi/en, t%e
"-$$icienc1 #$ t%e $act-a 0a"i" $#r t%e 'r#ca!ati#n #$ !artia a( #r t%e "-"'en"i#n
#$ t%e 'ri,ie)e #$ t%e (rit #$ %a0ea" c#r'-" #r t%e e+ten"i#n t%ere#$, an& !-"t
'r#!-)ate it" &eci"i#n t%ere#n (it%in t%irt1 &a1" $r#! it" $iin).
A "tate #$ !artia a( &#e" n#t "-"'en& t%e #'erati#n #$ t%e C#n"tit-ti#n, n#r "-''ant
t%e $-ncti#nin) #$ t%e ci,i c#-rt" #r e)i"ati,e a""e!0ie", n#r a-t%#ri/e t%e
c#n$er!ent #$ t%e =-ri"&icti#n #n !iitar1 c#-rt" an& a)encie" #,er ci,iian" (%ere
ci,i c#-rt" are a0e t# $-ncti#n, n#r a-t#!atica1 "-"'en& t%e 'ri,ie)e #$ t%e (rit.
T%e "-"'en"i#n #$ t%e 'ri,ie)e #$ t%e (rit "%a a''1 #n1 t# 'er"#n" =-&icia1
c%ar)e& $#r re0ei#n #r #$$en"e" in%erent in #r &irect1 c#nnecte& (it% in,a"i#n.
D-rin) t%e "-"'en"i#n #$ t%e 'ri,ie)e #$ t%e (rit, an1 'er"#n t%-" arre"te& #r &etaine&
"%a 0e =-&icia1 c%ar)e& (it%in t%ree &a1", #t%er(i"e %e "%a 0e
reea"e&. >E!'%a"i" "-''ie&.?
The a2ove provision grants the "resident, as Commander-in-Chief, a 3se=uence4 of
3graduated power@sA.4
[30]
!rom the most to the least 2enign, these are5 the calling out
power, the power to suspend the privilege of the writ of &abeas corus, and the power
to declare martial law. /n the exercise of the latter two powers, the Constitution re=uires
the concurrence of two conditions, namely, an actual invasion or re2ellion, and that
pu2lic safety re=uires the exercise of such power.
[31]
Bowever, as we o2served
in *nte!rated +ar of t&e P&iliines v. ,amora,
[32]
3@tAhese conditions are not re=uired in
the exercise of the calling out power. The only criterion is that Dwhenever it 2ecomes
necessary,E the "resident may call the armed forces Dto prevent or suppress lawless
violence, invasion or re2ellion.E4
Nevertheless, it is e=ually true that -ection 6:, Article <// does no expressly
prohi2it the "resident from declaring a state of re2ellion. Note that the Constitution
vests the "resident not only with 'ommander"in"'&ief powers 2ut, first and foremost,
with Executive powers.
-ection 6, Article <// of the 69:* "hilippine Constitution states5 3The executive
power shall 2e vested in the "residentG.4 As if 2y exposition, -ection 6* of the same
Article provides5 3Be shall ensure that the laws 2e faithfully executed.4 The provisions
trace their history to the Constitution of the Inited -tates.
The specific provisions of the I.-. Constitution granting the I.-. "resident
executive and commander-in-chief powers have remained in their original simple form
since the "hiladelphia Constitution of 6**C, Article // of which states in part5
Secti#n 2. 2. T%e E+ec-ti,e P#(er "%a 0e ,e"te& in a Pre"i&ent #$ t%e 9nite& State"
#$ A!erica . . . .
. . . .
Secti#n 2. 2. T%e Pre"i&ent "%a 0e C#!!an&er in C%ie$ #$ t%e Ar!1 an& Na,1 #$
t%e 9nite& State". . . .
. . . .
Secti#n 3. @ %e "%a ta.e care t%at t%e a(" 0e $ait%$-1 e+ec-te&@. >Artice II J
E+ec-ti,e P#(er?
8ecalling in historical vignettes the use 2y the I.-. "resident of the a2ove-=uoted
provisions, as uxtaposed against the corresponding action of the I.-. -upreme Court,
is instructive. Clad with the prerogatives of the office and endowed with sovereign
powers, which are drawn chiefly from the Executive "ower and Commander-in-Chief
provisions, as well as the presidential oath of office, the "resident serves as Chief of
-tate or Chief of 1overnment, Commander-in-Chief, Chief of !oreign 8elations and
Chief of "u2lic %pinion.
[33]
!irst to find definitive new piers for the authority of the Chief of -tate, as the
protector of the people, was "resident Andrew (ac&son. Coming to office 2y virtue of a
political revolution, (ac&son, as "resident not only &ept faith with the people 2y driving
the patricians from power. %ld Bic&ory, as he was fondly called, was the first "resident
to champion the indissolu2ility of the Inion 2y defeating -outh CarolinaEs nullification
effort.
[34]
The !ederal Tariff Acts of 6:): and 6:,) that Congress enacted did not pacify the
hotspurs from -outh Carolina. /ts -tate ?egislature ordered an election for a
convention, whose mem2ers =uic&ly passed an %rdinance of Nullification. The
%rdinance declared the Tariff Acts unconstitutional, prohi2ited -outh Carolina citi;ens
from o2eying them after a certain date in 6:,,, and threatened secession if the !ederal
1overnment sought to oppose the tariff laws. The ?egislature then implemented the
%rdinance with 2ristling punitive laws aimed at any who sought to pay or collect
customs duties.
[35]
(ac&son 2ided his time. Bis tas& of enforcement would not 2e easy. Technically,
the "resident might send troops into a -tate only if the 1overnor called for help to
suppress an insurrection, which would not occur in the instance. The "resident could
also send troops to see to it that the laws enacted 2y Congress were faithfully
executed. But these laws were aimed at individual citi;ens, and provided no
enforcement machinery against violation 2y a -tate. (ac&son prepared to as& Congress
for a force 2ill.
[36]
/n a letter to a friend, the "resident gave the essence of his position. Be wrote5 3. . .
when a faction in a -tate attempts to nullify a constitutional law of Congress, or to
destroy the Inion, the 2alance of the people composing this Inion have a perfect right
to coerce them to o2edience.4 Then in a "roclamation he issued on .ecem2er 6+,
6:,), he called upon -outh Carolinians to reali;e that there could 2e no peacea2le
interference with the execution of the laws, and dared them, 3disunion 2y armed force
is reason. Are you ready to incur its guiltJ4
[37]
The "roclamation frightened nullifiers, non-nullifiers and tight-rope wal&ers. -oon,
-tate ?egislatures 2egan to adopt resolutions of agreement, and the "resident
announced that the national voice from 'aine on the north to ?ouisiana on the south
had declared nullification and accession 3confined to contempt and infamy.4
[38]
No other "resident entered office faced with pro2lems so formida2le, and enfee2led
2y personal and political handicaps so daunting, as A2raham ?incoln.
?incoln 2elieved the "residentEs power 2road and that of Congress explicit and
restricted, and sought some source of executive power not failed 2y misuse or wrec&ed
2y sa2otage. Be sei;ed upon the "residentEs designation 2y the Constitution as
Commander-in-Chief, coupled it to the executive power provision K and oined them as
3the war power4 which authori;ed him to do many things 2eyond the competence of
Congress.
[39]
?incoln em2raced the (ac&son concept of the "residentEs independent power and
duty under his oath directly to represent and protect the people. /n his 'essage of (uly
0, 6:C6, ?incoln declared that 3the Executive found the duty of employing the war power
in defense of the government forced upon him. Be could not 2ut perform the duty or
surrender the existence of the 1overnment . . . .4 This concept 2egan as a transition
device, to 2e validated 2y Congress when it assem2led. /n less than two-years, it grew
into an independent power under which he felt authori;ed to suspend the privilege of
the writ of &abeas corus, issue the Emancipation "roclamation, and restore reoccupied
-tates.
[40]
?incolnEs "roclamation of April 67, 6:C6, called for *7,+++ troops. Their first
service, according to the proclamation, would 2e to recapture forts, places and property,
ta&ing care 3to avoid any devastation, any destruction of or interference with property, or
any distur2ance of peaceful citi;ens.4
[41]
Early in 6:C,, the I.-. -upreme Court approved "resident ?incolnEs report to use
the war powers without the 2enefit of Congress. The decision was handed in the
cele2ratedPri%e 'ases
[42]
which involved suits attac&ing the "residentEs right to legally
institute a 2loc&ade. Although his "roclamation was su2se=uently validated 2y
Congress, the claimants contended that under international law, a 2loc&ade could 2e
instituted only as a measure of war under the sovereign power of the -tate. -ince
under the Constitution only Congress is exclusively empowered to declare war, it is only
that 2ody that could impose a 2loc&ade and all pri;es sei;ed 2efore the legislative
declaration were illegal. By a 7 to 0 vote, the -upreme Court upheld ?incolnEs right to
act as he had.
[43]
/n the course of time, the I.-. "residentEs power to call out armed forces and
suspend the privilege of the writ of &abeas corus without prior legislative approval, in
case of invasion, insurrection, or re2ellion came to 2e recogni;ed and accepted. The
Inited -tates introduced the expanded presidential powers in the "hilippines through
the "hilippine Bill of 69+).
[44]
The use of the power was put to udicial test and this Court
held that the case raised a political =uestion and said that it is 2eyond its province to
in=uire into the exercise of the power.
[45]
?ater, the grant of the power was incorporated
in the 69,7 Constitution.
[46]
Elected in 6::0, 1rover Cleveland too& his ascent to the presidency to mean that it
made him the trustee of all the people. 1uided 2y the maxim that 3"u2lic office is a
pu2lic trust,4 which he practiced during his incum2ency, Cleveland sent federal troops to
/llinois to =uell stri&ing railway wor&ers who defied a court inunction. The inunction
2anned all pic&eting and distri2ution of hand2ills. !or leading the stri&es and violating
the inunction, .e2s, who was the union president, was convicted of contempt of
court. Brought to the -upreme Court, the principal issue was 2y what authority of the
Constitution or statute had the "resident to send troops without the re=uest of the
1overnor of the -tate.
[47]
/n *n Re- Eu!ene .ebs, et al,
[48]
the -upreme Court upheld the contempt conviction.
/t ruled that it is not the governmentEs province to mix in merely individual present
controversies. -till, so it went on, 3whenever wrongs complained of are such as affect
the pu2lic at large, and are in respect of matters which 2y the Constitution are entrusted
to the care of the Nation and concerning which the Nation owes the duty to all citi;ens
of securing to them their common rights, then the mere fact that the 1overnment has no
pecuniary interest in the controversy is not sufficient to exclude it from the Courts, or
prevent it from ta&ing measures therein to fully discharge those constitutional
duties.4
[49]
Thus, ClevelandEs course had the CourtEs attest.
Ta&ing off from "resident Cleveland, "resident Theodore 8oosevelt launched what
political scientists du2 the 3stewardship theory.4 Calling himself 3the steward of the
people,4 he felt that the executive power 3was limited only 2y the specific restrictions
and prohi2itions appearing in the Constitution, or impleaded 2y Congress under its
constitutional powers.4
[50]
The most far-reaching extension of presidential power 3T.8.4 ever undertoo& to
employ was his plan to occupy and operate "ennsylvaniaEs coal mines under his
authority as Commander-in-Chief. /n the issue, he found means other than force to end
the 69+) hard-coal stri&e, 2ut he had made detailed plans to use his power as
Commander-in-Chief to wrest the mines from the stu22orn operators, so that coal
production would 2egin again.
[51]
Eventually, the power of the -tate to intervene in and even ta&e over the operation
of vital utilities in the pu2lic interest was accepted. /n the "hilippines, this led to the
incorporation of -ection C,
[52]
Article L/// of the 69,7 Constitution, which was later carried
over with modifications in -ection *,
[53]
Article L/< of the 69*, Constitution, and
thereafter in -ection 6:,
[54]
Article L// of the 69:* Constitution.
The lesson to 2e learned from the I.-. constitutional history is that the
Commander-in-Chief powers are 2road enough as it is and 2ecome more so when
ta&en together with the provision on executive power and the presidential oath of
office. Thus, the plenitude of the powers of the presidency e=uips the occupant with the
means to address exigencies or threats which undermine the very existence of
government or the integrity of the -tate.
/n /&e P&iliine Presidency # Study of Executive Po0er, the late 'me. (ustice
/rene 8. Cortes, proposed that the "hilippine "resident was vested with residual power
and that this is even greater than that of the I.-. "resident. -he attri2uted this
distinction to the 3unitary and highly centrali;ed4 nature of the "hilippine
government. -he noted that, 3There is no counterpart of the several states of the
American union which have reserved powers under the Inited -tates
constitution.4 Ela2orating on the constitutional 2asis for her argument, she wrote5
@. T%e >2K3D? P%ii''ine >C?#n"tit-ti#n e"ta0i"%e" t%e t%ree &e'art!ent" #$ t%e
)#,ern!ent in t%i" !annerL BT%e e)i"ati,e '#(er "%a 0e ,e"te& in a C#n)re"" #$
t%e P%ii''ine" (%ic% "%a c#n"i"t #$ a Senate an& a H#-"e #$ Re're"entati,e".C BT%e
e+ec-ti,e '#(er "%a 0e ,e"te& in a Pre"i&ent #$ t%e P%ii''ine".C T%e =-&icia
'#(er" "%a 0e ,e"te& in #ne S-'re!e C#-rt an& in "-c% in$eri#r c#-rt" a" !a1 0e
'r#,i&e& 01 a(.C T%e"e 'r#,i"i#n" n#t #n1 e"ta0i"% a "e'arati#n #$ '#(er" 01
act-a &i,i"i#n 0-t a"# c#n$er 'enar1 e)i"ati,e, e+ec-ti,e, an& =-&icia '#(er". F#r
a" t%e S-'re!e C#-rt #$ t%e P%ii''ine" '#inte& #-t in Ocampo v. Cabangis, Ba )rant
#$ e)i"ati,e '#(er !ean" a )rant #$ a t%e e)i"ati,e '#(er4 an& a )rant #$ t%e
=-&icia '#(er !ean" a )rant #$ a t%e =-&icia '#(er (%ic% !a1 0e e+erci"e& -n&er
t%e )#,ern!ent.C I$ t%i" i" tr-e #$ t%e e)i"ati,e '#(er (%ic% i" e+erci"e& 01 t(#
c%a!0er" (it% a c#!0ine& !e!0er"%i' >at t%at ti!e? #$ !#re t%an 22; an& #$ t%e
=-&icia '#(er (%ic% i" ,e"te& in a %ierarc%1 #$ c#-rt", it can e8-a1 i$ n#t !#re
a''r#'riate1 a''1 t# t%e e+ec-ti,e '#(er (%ic% i" ,e"te& in #ne #$$icia J t%e
're"i&ent. He 'er"#ni$ie" t%e e+ec-ti,e 0ranc%. T%ere i" a -nit1 in t%e e+ec-ti,e
0ranc% a0"ent $r#! t%e t(# #t%er 0ranc%e" #$ )#,ern!ent. T%e 're"i&ent i" n#t t%e
c%ie$ #$ !an1 e+ec-ti,e". He i" the e+ec-ti,e. Hi" &irecti#n #$ t%e e+ec-ti,e 0ranc%
can 0e !#re i!!e&iate an& &irect t%an t%e 9nite& State" 're"i&ent 0eca-"e %e i" )i,en
01 e+'re"" 'r#,i"i#n #$ t%e c#n"tit-ti#n c#ntr# #,er a e+ec-ti,e &e'art!ent",
0-rea-" an& #$$ice".
>DD?
The esteemed (ustice conducted her study against the 2ac&drop of the 69,7
Constitution, the framers of which, early on, arrived at a general opinion in favor of a
strong Executive in the "hilippines.4
@7CA
-ince then, reeling from the aftermath of martial
law, our most recent Charter has restricted the "residentEs powers as Commander-in-
Chief. The same, however, cannot 2e said of the "residentEs powers as Chief Executive.
/n her onencia in Marcos v. Man!laus, (ustice Cortes put her thesis into
urisprudence. There, the Court, 2y a slim :-* margin, upheld the "residentEs power to
for2id the return of her exiled predecessor. The rationale for the maorityEs ruling rested
on the "residentEs
@ -n"tate& re"i&-a '#(er" (%ic% are i!'ie& $r#! t%e )rant #$ e+ec-ti,e '#(er an&
(%ic% are nece""ar1 $#r %er t# c#!'1 (it% %er &-tie" -n&er t%e C#n"tit-ti#n. T%e
'#(er" #$ t%e Pre"i&ent are n#t i!ite& t# (%at are e+'re""1 en-!erate& in t%e artice
#n t%e E+ec-ti,e De'art!ent an& in "cattere& 'r#,i"i#n" #$ t%e C#n"tit-ti#n. T%i" i"
"#, n#t(it%"tan&in) t%e a,#(e& intent #$ t%e !e!0er" #$ t%e C#n"tit-ti#na
C#!!i""i#n #$ 2K5H t# i!it t%e '#(er" #$ t%e Pre"i&ent a" a reacti#n t# t%e a0-"e"
-n&er t%e re)i!e #$ Mr. Marc#", $#r t%e re"-t (a" a limitation of specific powers #$
t%e Pre"i&ent, 'artic-ar1 t%#"e reatin) t# t%e c#!!an&er*in*c%ie$ ca-"e, 0-t not a
diminution of the general grant of executive power.
[57]
>9n&er"c#rin) "-''ie&. Itaic"
in t%e #ri)ina.?
Thus, the "residentEs authority to declare a state of re2ellion springs in the main
from her powers as chief executive and, at the same time, draws strength from her
Commander-in-Chief powers. /ndeed, as the -olicitor 1eneral accurately points out,
statutory authority for such a declaration may 2e found in -ection 0, Chapter )
#%rdinance "ower$, Boo& /// #%ffice of the "resident$ of the 8evised Administrative
Code of 69:*, which states5
SEC. 4. Proclamations. J Act" #$ t%e Pre"i&ent $i+in) a &ate #r &ecarin) a "tat-" #r
c#n&iti#n #$ '-0ic !#!ent #r intere"t, upon the existence of which the operation of
a specific law or regulation is made to depend, "%a 0e 'r#!-)ate&
in proclamations (%ic% "%a %a,e t%e $#rce #$ an e+ec-ti,e #r&er. >E!'%a"i"
"-''ie&.?
The foregoing discussion notwithstanding, in calling out the armed forces, a
declaration of a state of re2ellion is an utter superfluity.
@7:A
At most, it only gives notice to
the nation that such a state exists and that the armed forces may 2e called to prevent or
suppress it.
@79A
"erhaps the declaration may wrea& emotional effects upon the perceived
enemies of the -tate, even on the entire nation. But this CourtEs mandate is to pro2e
only into the legal conse=uences of the declaration. This Court finds that such a
declaration is devoid of any legal significance. !or all legal intents, the declaration is
deemed not written.
-hould there 2e any 3confusion4 generated 2y the issuance of "roclamation No. 0)*
and 1eneral %rder No. 0, we clarify that, as the dissenters in $acson correctly pointed
out, the mere declaration of a state of re2ellion cannot diminish or violate
constitutionally protected rights.
@C+A
/ndeed, if a state of martial law does not suspend the
operation of the Constitution or automatically suspend the privilege of the writ of &abeas
corus,
@C6A
then it is with more reason that a simple declaration of a state of re2ellion
could not 2ring a2out these conditions.
@C)A
At any rate, the presidential issuances
themselves call for the suppression of the re2ellion 3with due regard to constitutional
rights.4
!or the same reasons, apprehensions that the military and police authorities may
resort to warrantless arrests are li&ewise unfounded. /n $acson vs. Pere%, sura,
maority of the Court held that 3@iAn =uelling or suppressing the re2ellion, the authorities
may only resort to warrantless arrests of persons suspected of re2ellion, as provided
under -ection 7, 8ule 66, of the 8ules of Court,
[63]
if the circumstances so warrant. The
warrantless arrest feared 2y petitioners is, thus, not 2ased on the declaration of a Dstate
of re2ellion.E4
[64]
/n other words, a person may 2e su2ected to a warrantless arrest for the
crime of re2ellion whether or not the "resident has declared a state of re2ellion, so long
as the re=uisites for a valid warrantless arrest are present.
/t is not disputed that the "resident has full discretionary power to call out the armed
forces and to determine the necessity for the exercise of such power. Mhile the Court
may examine whether the power was exercised within constitutional limits or in a
manner constituting grave a2use of discretion, none of the petitioners here have, 2y
way of proof, supported their assertion that the "resident acted without factual 2asis.
[65]
The argument that the declaration of a state of re2ellion amounts to a declaration of
martial law and, therefore, is a circumvention of the report re=uirement, is a leap of
logic. There is no indication that military tri2unals have replaced civil courts in the
3theater of war4 or that military authorities have ta&en over the functions of civil
government. There is no allegation of curtailment of civil or political rights. There is no
indication that the "resident has exercised udicial and legislative powers. /n short,
there is no illustration that the "resident has attempted to exercise or has exercised
martial law powers.
Nor 2y any stretch of the imagination can the declaration constitute an indirect
exercise of emergency powers, which exercise depends upon a grant of Congress
pursuant to -ection ), #)$, Article </ of the Constitution5
Sec. 23. F2I @.
F2I In ti!e" #$ (ar #r #t%er nati#na e!er)enc1, t%e C#n)re"" !a1, 01 a(, a-t%#ri/e
t%e Pre"i&ent, $#r a i!ite& 'eri#& an& "-0=ect t# "-c% re"tricti#n" a" it !a1 're"cri0e,
t# e+erci"e '#(er" nece""ar1 an& 'r#'er t# carr1 #-t a &ecare& nati#na
'#ic1. 9ne"" "##ner (it%&ra(n 01 re"#-ti#n #$ t%e C#n)re"", "-c% '#(er" "%a
cea"e -'#n t%e ne+t a&=#-rn!ent t%ere#$.
The petitions do not cite a specific instance where the "resident has attempted to or
has exercised powers 2eyond her powers as Chief Executive or as Commander-in-
Chief. The "resident, in declaring a state of re2ellion and in calling out the armed
forces, was merely exercising a wedding of her Chief Executive and Commander-in-
Chief powers. These are pure7y e@e?u'Ae powers, vested on the "resident 2y
-ections 6 and 6:, Article <//, as opposed to the !e7eBae! 7eB's7a'Ae powers
contemplated 2y -ection ), #)$, Article </.
-2"R"F+R", the petitions are here2y ./-'/--E..
S+ +R*"R"*.
'ario, 'orona, and 'ario"Morales, JJ., concur.
.avide, Jr., '.J., in the result.
Puno, J., in the result.
1itu!, J., see separate opinion.
Pan!aniban, J., see separate opinion.
2uisumbin!, J., oins (. "angani2anEs %pinion.
3nares"Santia!o, J., see separate opinion.
Sandoval"4utierre%, J., please see dissenting opinion.
#ustria"Martine%, J., concur in the result.
'alle5o, Sr., J., concurs in the separate opinion of (. "angani2an.
#%cuna, J., on official leave.
[1]
Rollo, 1.8. No. 679+:7, p. *H Rollo, 1.8. No. 6796+,, pp. 0-7H Rollo, 1.8. No. 6796:7, pp. 0-7H Rollo,
1.8. No. 6796:C, p. 9.
[2]
The Court in a 8esolution dated August 7, )++, #Rollo, 1.8. No. 679+:C, p. 6:$ previously dismissed
the -anla&as petition for failure to attach certified true copies of "roclamation No. 0)* and
1eneral %rder No. 0, and for failure to explain why service of the petition on respondents was not
made personally. "etitioners su2se=uently filed a motion for leave to admit the petition with
compliance for reconsideration, attaching therewith a certified copy of the impugned "roclamation
and 1eneral %rder. The Court, in a 8esolution dated August 6), )++, #*d., at *,$ granted
petitionersE motion for leave and reinstated the petition.
[3]
*d., at 6+-6).
[4]
*d., at 6,-60.
[5]
Rollo, 1.8. No. 6796+,, p. 0.
[6]
*d., at C.
[7]
*d., at :.
[8]
*d., at *.
[9]
*bid.
[10]
Rollo, 1.8. No. 6796:7, p. 7.
[11]
*d., at 6+.
[12]
*bid.
[13]
*bid.
[14]
Rollo, 1.8. No. 67969C, p. *.
[15]
*d., at 6*.
[16]
Rollo, 1.8. No. 679+:7, p. 07H Rollo, 1.8. No. 6796+,, p. ),H Rollo, 1.8. No. 6796:7, p. ))H Rollo,
1.8. No. 6796:C, p. 06.
[17]
Rollo, 1.8. No. 679+:7, pp. 00-07H Rollo, 1.8. No. 6796+,, pp. ))-),H Rollo, 1.8. No. 6796:7, pp. )6-
))H Rollo, 1.8. No. 6796:C, pp. 0+-06.
[18]
C%N-T., art. <///, sec. 6H .umlao v. C%'E?EC, 1.8. No. ?-7))07, (anuary )), 69:+, 97 -C8A ,9).
[19]
Alunan /// v. 'irasol, 1.8. No. 6+:,99, (uly ,6, 699*, )*C -C8A 7+6.
[20]
?acson v. "ere;, 1.8. No. 60**:+, 'ay 6+, )++6, ,7* -C8A *7*, *C).
[21]
Sura.
[22]
1.8. No. 66,6+7, August 69, 6990, ),7 -C8A 7+C.
[23]
/ntegrated Bar of the "hilippines v. Namora, 1.8. No. 606):0, August 67, )+++, ,,: -C8A :6.
[24]
Rollo, 1.8. No. 679+:7, p. C.
[25]
?acson v. "ere;, sura, at *CC.
[26]
1.8. No. 66:96+, Novem2er 69, 6997, )7+ -C8A 6,+.
[27]
*d., at 6,9.
[28]
Bayan #Bagong Alyansang 'a&a2ayan$ v. Namora, 1.8 No. 6,:7*+, %cto2er 6+, )+++, ,0) -C8A
009.
[29]
1.8. No. 6,)9)), April )6, 699:, Telecommunications and Broadcast Attorneys of the "hilippines, /nc.
v. Commission on Elections, ):9 -C8A ,,*.
[30]
// 8ecord of the Constitutional Commission 0+9.
[31]
/ntegrated Bar of the "hilippines v. Namora, sura at 66+.
[32]
*bid.
[33]
/n the "hilippines, the "resident is called the Chief Executive.
[34]
'ilton, The Ise of "residential "ower, 6*:9-690,, pp. *,, :C-9+.
[35]
*d., at 96.
[36]
*d., at 9).
[37]
*bid.
[38]
'ilton, at 96-9).
[39]
*d., at 6+9.
[40]
*bid.
[41]
*bid.
[42]
) Blac& C,7, 6* ?. 079 #6:C,$.
[43]
'ilton, at 66+.
[44]
A paragraph of section 7 of the act of the I.-. Congress of (uly 6, 69+), otherwise &nown as the
"hilippine Bill of 69+), provides5 3That the privilege of the writ of &abeas corus shall not 2e
suspended, unless when in cases of re2ellion, insurrection, or invasion the pu2lic safety may
re=uire it, in either of which events the same may 2e suspended 2y the "resident, or 2y the
1overnor-1eneral with the approval of the "hilippine Commission, whenever during such period
the necessity for such suspension shall exist.4
[45]
Barcelon v. Ba&er, 7 "hil. :*, 6+, #69+7$.
[46]
-ec. 6+, Art. <//, 69,7 C%N-T.
[47]
'ilton, 6C:-6*+H "eter /rons, A "E%"?EE- B/-T%8O %! TBE -I"8E'E C%I8T, "u2lished 2y the
"enguin 1roup5 New Oor&, N.O. , 6999, pp. )07-)0*.
[48]
67: I.-. 6+9) #6:90$.
[49]
*d., at 66+,.
@7+A
'ilton, at 66+. /n #n #utobio!ra&y, 8oosevelt wrote5
The most important factor in getting the right spirit in my Administration, next to the insistence upon
courage, honesty, and a genuine democracy of desire to serve the plain people, was my
insistence upon the theory that the executive power was limited only 2y specific restrictions and
prohi2itions appearing in the Constitution or imposed 2y the Congress under its Constitutional
powers. 'y view was that every executive officer, and a2ove all, executive officer in high position
was a steward of the people, and not to content himself with the negative merit of &eeping his
talents undamaged in a nap&in. / declined to adopt the view that what was imperatively
necessary for the Nation could not 2e done 2y the "resident unless he could find some specific
authori;ation to do it. 'y 2elief was that it was not only his right 2ut his duty to do anything that
the needs of the Nation demanded unless such action was for2idden 2y the Constitution or 2y the
laws. Inder this interpretation of the executive power, / did and caused to 2e done many things
not previously done 2y the "resident and the heads of the .epartments. / did not usurp power,
2ut / did greatly 2roaden the use of executive power. /n other words, / acted for the pu2lic
welfare, / acted for the common well-2eing of all our people, whenever and in whatever manner
was necessary, unless prevented 2y direct constitutional or legislative prohi2ition. / did not care a
rap for the mere form and show of powerH / cared immensely for the use that could 2e made of
the su2stance. @An Auto2iography, ,:9 #696,$ New Oor&.A
Milliam Boward Taft too& the opposite view. Be opined that 3the "resident can exercise no power which
cannot 2e fairly and reasona2ly traced to some specific grant of power or ustly implied and
included within such express grant as proper and necessary to its exercise. -uch specific grant
must 2e either in the Constitution or in an act of Congress passed in pursuance thereof. There is
no undefined residuum of power which he can exercise 2ecause it seems to 2e in the pu2lic
interest.4
7+
#%ur Chief 'agistrate and Bis "owers, 6,9-60) #696C$ New Oor&.$ ?ater, however,
Taft, as Chief (ustice, would change his view. -ee 'yers v. Inited -tates, )*) I- 7), *6 ? Ed
6C+, 0* -C )6 #69)C$, holding that 3The words of P ), following the general grant of executive
power under P 6 were either an enumeration of specific functions of the Executive, not all
inclusive, or were limitations upon the general grant of the executive power, and as such, 2eing
limitations, should not 2e enlarged 2eyond the words used.4
[51]
'ilton, at 6*9.
[52]
The -tate may, in the interest of national welfare and defense, esta2lish and operate industries and
means of transportation and communication, and upon payment of ust compensation, transfer to
pu2lic ownership utilities and other private enterprises to 2e operated 2y the 1overnment.
[53]
/n times of national emergency when the pu2lic interest so re=uires, the -tate may temporarily ta&e
over and direct the operation of any privately owned pu2lic utility or 2usiness affected with pu2lic
interest.
[54]
/n times of national emergency when the pu2lic interest so re=uires, the -tate may, during the
emergency and under reasona2le terms prescri2ed 2y it, temporarily ta&e over or direct the
operation of any privately owned pu2lic utility or 2usiness affected with pu2lic interest.
[55]
Cortes, TBE "B/?/""/NE "8E-/.ENCO, A -TI.O %! ELECIT/<E "%ME8, pp. C:-C9.
[56]
/ Arugeo, TBE !8A'/N1 %! TBE C%N-T/TIT/%NA? C%N<ENT/%N ,9* #6909$ 'anila.
[57]
'arcos v. 'anglapus, 1.8. No. ::)66, %cto2er )*, 69:9, 6*: -C8A *C+, *C,-*C0.
[58]
See ?acson v. "ere;, sura, Qapunan, J., dissenting, at **,, **C.
[59]
*bid.
[60]
*bid.
[61]
C%N-T., art. <//, sec. 6:.
[62]
?acson v. "ere;, sura, -andoval-1utierre; dissenting, at *9)-*9,.
[63]
-EC. 7. #rrests 0it&out 0arrant6 0&en la0ful. R A police officer or a private person may, without a
warrant, arrest a person5
#a$ Mhen, in his presence, the person to 2e arrested has committed, or is actually committing, or is
attempting to commit an offenseH
#2$ Mhen an offense has ust 2een committed and he has pro2a2le cause to 2elieve 2ased on
personal &nowledge of facts or circumstances that the person to 2e arrested has committed itH
G.
[64]
?acson v. "ere;, sura, at *C,.
[65]
/B" v. Namora, sura.